Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

One has to wonder just how long Sol88 will keep this drivel up .. and whether or not he knows that its perfectly obvious to observers that he has a clear obsession with trying to gain Tusenfem's attention? (I think its called 'stalking' ..)

His pititful attempts at trying to 'refocus' Tusenfem on the various incarnations of his EC delusion are quite hilarious. Thank goodness Tusenfem is open to scientific arguments (and not EU Acolyte led Liturgies).

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Everything is back on the table! All the "it can never happen", slowly changed to "it might happen" to eventually "well of course it happens", why wouldn't it!

No, not "everything is on the table", there is draping, but not in the classical way that Alfvén described, which also did not incorporate nested draping.

Because of the pick-up of the cometary ion, and them being accelerated in the direction of the convective electric field of the solar wind, the solar wind plasma has to react by moving into the opposite direction (I guess you did not read the Deca paper). The IMF is still frozen into the solar wind plasma flow, and thus in front of the comet the draping is "upward" (Koenders et al., 2016). This effect extends into the region behind the comet in the near tail, and beyond ~500 km it reverts/rotates to more classical draping.

Just got the acceptance email.

Originally Posted by Sol88

So here we are with charge separation back in the fore!

Do you actually read what I write to explain stuff to you?
What charge separation????

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

In that case your beloved current carrying double layers may be created

Why would you not expect a double layer when for instance Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko

And a double layer would not be expected because....?????

Because of the magnetic field. In my humble opinion, the field is way to turbulent and the particle motions, to set up a double layer, which will have a size of tens of Debye lengths, which for n=100 cm^-3, and 100 eV ions would be: lambd_D = 50 m. (taking the values of the Nemeth paper, you might want to give the links too, so that people know what paper you are talking about)

Now we have to compare this to other important quantities like gyro radii of ions and electrons, in a magnetic field of ~20 nT, which for 100 eV are 1 km for electrons and and 50 km for protons!

Originally Posted by Sol88

oh..MHD will not allow it and that will make the maths just too hard, so therefore it MUST not happen.

This has nothing to do with using MHD or not. Plasma physics is indeed a bit more complicated that MHD, but if that would keep us from doing our job, we would all be like you.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Skorov is not in the bad books, he just says that HIS models cannot explain gas drag lifting off small dust.

Originally Posted by Sol88

On the other hand a strong electric field will do it with ease and would be expected too!

Now all we need to find is electric currents supporting current carrying double layers and id Say we could close the book on that chapter and go to the interesting stuff. What if we mimic a comet?

How strong is strong?
But of course you got no answers.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Little home work to bring you up to speed, papers available via the usual sources.

1. Is the dust charged?
2. When does it become charged? (how close to the nucleus)
3. Does that charged dust couple to the surrounding plasma?
3. Are there electric fields at a comet?
4. How are the electric fields formed and sustained and Where do they start and end, what size and strength are they?
5 what happens to the dust from the time it leaves the surface till we no longer detect it?
6 the composition of the dust

How about you teach us MS peeps something?

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Why? Surely the jets were the death knell for this EU idiocy, no? Such as the highly energetic CO2 jets at Hartley 2. Which were entraining H2O ice grains. When said ice grains were visible in the images from that comet.
I think that what you meant to say was that the total lack of any electrical woo on the comet nucleus, as predicted on this very forum by D. Talbott, was the death of the electric comet woo. Not to mention the total lack of rock. You are still batting zero. No amount of diversion, obfuscation or gish galloping is going to alter the fact that the electric comet woo is dead. Provably so. Predictably so.

__________________There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest. - Victor Hugo

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - George Carlin

So whats happening there jd116 with the charged organic, refractory, dehydrated dust from the nucleus? Ice is looking less and less likely.

Sublimation is having a harder and harder time splainn the dust release from the nucleus of a comet....

On the other hand a strong electric field will do it with ease and would be expected too!

Now all we need to find is electric currents supporting current carrying double layers and id Say we could close the book on that chapter and go to the interesting stuff. What if we mimic a comet?

Wrong. Firstly, there are no current carrying double layers. Two years of observations by an in-situ spacecraft failed to find any such thing. To keep prattling on about such unobserved phenomena is not going to make them suddenly appear. They do not exist.
Secondly;

Quote:

Conclusions. Our model can explain the large grains (ranging from 2 cm to 1 m in radius) in the inner coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that have been observed by the OSIRIS camera at heliocentric distances between 3.4 AU and 3.7 AU. Furthermore, the model predicts the release of decimeter-sized aggregates (trail particles) close to the heliocentric distance at which the gas-driven dust activity vanishes. However, the gas-driven dust activity cannot explain the presence of particles smaller than ~1 mm in the coma because the high tensile strength required to detach these particles from the surface cannot be provided by evaporation of volatile ices. These smaller particles can be produced for instance by spin-up and centrifugal mass loss of ejected larger aggregates.

One has to wonder just how long Sol88 will keep this drivel up .. and whether or not he knows that its perfectly obvious to observers that he has a clear obsession with trying to gain Tusenfem's attention? (I think its called 'stalking' ..)

His pititful attempts at trying to 'refocus' Tusenfem on the various incarnations of his EC delusion are quite hilarious. Thank goodness Tusenfem is open to scientific arguments (and not EU Acolyte led Liturgies).

They have been engaging in the same blather rinse repeat for quite a while.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

More adding to a litany of lies:7 December 2017 Sol88: A "jets on a comet, the death of the dirtysnowball" lie.
Cometary jets are evidence for comets being made of ices and dust because they contain gases from sublimated ices, icy grains and dust grains. We have images of jets issuing from inside of pits on 67P. We have traced jets back to fractured cliff walls and plains.
Cometary jets are one way to measure the density of comets. They change the comet orbit (Newton's laws!). That change allows the mass of a comet to be double, triple or quadruple checked from other methods! Divide by the volume of the comet and we have its density.

What we will get is repeated delusions that have been debunked for many years in this forum alone, e.g. that the jets are electrical discharges. Or the idiocy of imagined flaws in working science = insanely ignorant delusions have to be right.

No, not "everything is on the table", there is draping, but not in the classical way that Alfvén described, which also did not incorporate nested draping.

Because of the pick-up of the cometary ion, and them being accelerated in the direction of the convective electric field of the solar wind, the solar wind plasma has to react by moving into the opposite direction (I guess you did not read the Deca paper). The IMF is still frozen into the solar wind plasma flow, and thus in front of the comet the draping is "upward" (Koenders et al., 2016). This effect extends into the region behind the comet in the near tail, and beyond ~500 km it reverts/rotates to more classical draping.

Just got the acceptance email.

Do you actually read what I write to explain stuff to you?
What charge separation????

Figure 9. AA: The crossing of a current sheet on 6 June 2015. In the gray box the cone angle of the magnetic
field changes strongly over more than 100
◦. This rotation of the field coincides with a minimum in
total magnetic field and a maximum in electron density, indicating the crossing of a current sheet. (See also
Volwerk et al. [2016b]) BB: The signature of a magnetic flux rope in 67P/CG’s magnetosheath. The data in
minimum variance coordinates show the characteristic signature of a flux rope. (Taken from Edberg et al.
[2016a])

Currents in Cometary Comae

'cos i'm so dense, my ANY plasma physicist care to try and tell me what a MAGNETIC FLUX ROPE is in this circumstance?

Quote:

This means that the induced magnetosphere around a comet consists of a complex geometry of magnetic fields, as if a large amount of different kinds of curtains have been draped around the nucleus. One of the consequences of these rotations of the magnetic field is that there will be current sheets generated in the coma.

Quote:

5 Harris and co. In a region where oppositely directed magnetic fields meet, a current sheet will be generated, by necessity of Amp`ere’s law:

bit like "magnetagic" reconnection.

Quote:

When a comet enters the region inside the orbit of Jupiter, the solar irradiation is strong enough to start heating the nucleus and for the volatiles to start sublimating. In order to model the outgassing of a comet at a rate of Qn [molecules s..1], a spherical expansion is assumed where the gas moves away from the nucleus at a velocity of Ve [m/s]. The neutrals gas, escaping from the comet will get ionized by solar UV radiation and/or collisions with the solar wind at a rate of . [s..1]. Using this, the radial dependence of the neutral gas density Nn can be formulated by the Haser [1957] model : The number of ions that are implanted per second into the solar wind is then given by Qi = .Nn [see also, Huddleston et al., 1990].

Well that's completely wrong but as long as it make your maths easer.

no real point to the post, just for m information everytime i think there might be something going on plasma/electrical wise.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

9.1 Diamagnetic cavity Only the Giotto spacecraft [Reinhard, 1986], with its closest approach (CA) to the nucleus, observed the diamagnetic cavity around comet 1P/Halley. The observations by the Giotto magnetometer [Neubauer et al., 1986] clearly showed a field-free region around CA. The duration of this signature was . 124:5 s which corresponded to a physical width of . 8513 km. Fig. 5BB shows the transition of Giotto into the diamagnetic cavity, where over a very sharp boundary (C) the magnetic field strength decreases from . 20 nT to almost zero. From the behaviour of the magnetic field components it was deduced that there are not only currents perpendicular to the magnetic field (taking care of the shielding of the cavity) but there are also strong field-aligned currents in alternating directions.

There is no such thing as charge separation, no charge separation, no charge separation.

Quote:

which is below the theoretical estimates for the sum of these two quantities, and a possible extra source of mass-loading through energetic electrons may have to be invoked [see e.g. recent Rosetta discoveries by, Feldman et al., 2015, for extra ionization through photodissociation electrons].

Nothing electrical, no charge separation, no charge separation.

Quote:

During a short interval before CA, 0711 - 0724 UT, the magnetic field draping direction was opposite to that observed over the main part of the cometosheath. Verigin et al. [1987] show a model, see also Fig. 6AA, in which they show the topology of the magnetic field along the orbit of VEGA 1 and infer a reconnection site located before CA, which accelerates the ions to the observed energies. In a later paper, Kirsch et al. [1989] discussed observations from Giotto, where they state that the nested draping, i.e. the fast 180. rotations of the field direction, are gconsidered as an indication of the field line merging process in the front side of Halleyfs cometosheath.h A further study of the ions showed that during the magnetic field rotations there is a peak in the high-energy ions, coinciding with a drop in the low-energy ions. The pitch angle of the highenergy ions is shown to be near zero degrees, i.e. field aligned. However, Kirsch et al. [1989] estimated the energization of the ions through reconnection and found that the maximum energy would be Ei . 22 keV assuming acceleration of the ion over a length of 50000 km, well below the observed energies of 97 - 145 keV (see Fig. 6BB). These are indirect indications that magnetic reconnection could be taking place in the current sheets generated by nested draping. .

No charge separation no charge separation

Quote:

In Fig. 9BB an example of such a structure is shown in minimum variance coordinates [Sonnerup and Scheible, 1998], which has the classical characteristics of a flux rope, which means that there is a strong current flowing along the centre of the tube.

Quote:

This means that the induced magnetosphere around a comet consists of a complex geometry
of magnetic fields, as if a large amount of different kinds of curtains have been draped
around the nucleus. One of the consequences of these rotations of the magnetic field is that
there will be current sheets generated in the coma

All from the Super Duper Plasma Physicist paper Currents in Cometary Comae

If you say often enough is almost becomes reality! There is no charge separation...say's

The current system associated with the boundary of plasma bubbles in the Earth's magnetotail has been studied by employing Cluster multipoint observations. We have investigated the currents in both the dipolarization front (DF, leading edge of the plasma bubble) and the trailing edge of the plasma bubble. The distribution of currents at the edge indicates that there is a current circuit in the boundary of a plasma bubble. The field-aligned currents in the trailing edge of the plasma bubble are flowing toward the ionosphere (downward) on the dawnside and away from the ionosphere (upward) on the duskside, in the same sense as region-1 current. Together with previous studies of the current distributions in the DF and magnetic dip region, we have obtained a more complete picture of the current system surrounding the boundary of plasma bubble. This current system is very similar to the substorm current wedge predicted by MHD simulation models but with much smaller scale.

No charge separation No charge separation. No charge separation.

Quote:

10.4 Solar wind impact The solar wind is variable, not only the magnetic field direction (responsible for nested draping), but magnetic explosions on the surface of the Sun regularly send coronal mass ejections (CMEs) into interplanetary space. These are fast, high-density, magnetic flux ropes [see e.g., M¨ostl et al., 2014] which can interact with the planets, creating e.g. strong disturbances in the Earth’s magnetosphere [see e.g., Zhang et al., 2007]. But they will also interact with comets and lead to interesting phenomena

For the maths purest, it’s dam hard when you get the maths absolutely bang on,....then the plasma does something leftfield, leaving the maths butt naked.

All a total irrelevance. What it is not doing is causing EDM (lol) on the surface to a bunch of non-rock. Doesn't matter how you cut it - the electric comet is a total failure.

ETA:
The sheer hypocrisy of a believer in failed unscientific woo, quoting mainstream papers, should not escape anyone's attention. Particularly when the phenomena mentioned were, more often than not, predicted before they were discovered in-situ, based on (mathematical) modelling!

__________________There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest. - Victor Hugo

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - George Carlin

8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiotic and irrelevant post to derail from his comet delusions.
Idiocy of just a paper title yet again.
Idiotic expectation that people who know his over 8 years od denial of basic physics and math will answer his irrelevant questions .
The stupidity that having the word magnetic in common means magnetic flux rope is "a bit like" magnetic reconnection.
The irrelevant stupidity of "but as long as it make your maths easer". Many assumptions make the math possible, not just easier.

Sol88: Lies about tusenfem with "no such thing as charge separation" idiocy

Originally Posted by Sol88

There ....

8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about tusenfem's paper with "no such thing as charge separation" idiocy.
The paper does not contain charge separation because charge separation is irrelevant to its subject. Charge separation is standard plasma physics, i.e. double layers!8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about tusenfem's paper with "Nothing electrical" idiocy.8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (field-aligned currents is not charge separation - !).8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (energetic electrons is not charge separation - !).8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (magnetic reconnection is not charge separation - !).

^^^^^ The thing is, RC, we will never get an answer to the obvious questions; as in - where was the electric woo? Where was the EDM (lol)? Where was the rock? All we will get is a Gish-gallop to cover over the fact that the electric comet woo has been shown to be (predictably) BS. Sol will never address the fact that his woo has been shown to be....well....woo!
The electric comet woo is dead. It was never alive. It is only believed in by idiots with a sub-human IQ. It is a waste of space. Only a loon would believe in such idiocy. I could go on - however, I think you get my point.

__________________There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest. - Victor Hugo

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - George Carlin

just a quick note
current (parallel or perpendicular) in space plasmas are induced by changes in the magnetic field (ampere's law)
currents have nothing to do with charge separation

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Somewhere back at the very start of this thread we were arguing over if said plasma physics actually operated like it now, Obviously is. Debye length, quasi neutrality and general dummy spitting were used to obstruct science on the bleed’n obvious electrical nature of well everything!

I think we will have a bit more to talk about once we can read tusenfem paper.

I also find it amusing from the various tweets on the Rosetta mission, when plasma is talked about most other disciplines roll there eyes and duck out for a hot cupa!

Somewhere back at the very start of this thread we were arguing over if said plasma physics actually operated like it now, Obviously is. Debye length, quasi neutrality and general dummy spitting were used to obstruct science on the bleedn obvious electrical nature of well everything!

I think we will have a bit more to talk about once we can read tusenfem paper.

I also find it amusing from the various tweets on the Rosetta mission, when plasma is talked about most other disciplines roll there eyes and duck out for a hot cupa!

Insofar as I understood the previous???? We had a spacecraft around a comet for 2+ years. None of this electric woo happened. Did it? Please explain why anybody needs to take this crap seriously? We don't. It is woo. It is dead. Stop polluting this site with idiotic, unscientific, debunked woo.

__________________There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest. - Victor Hugo

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - George Carlin

Insofar as I understood the previous???? We had a spacecraft around a comet for 2+ years. None of this electric woo happened. Did it? Please explain why anybody needs to take this crap seriously? We don't. It is woo. It is dead. Stop polluting this site with idiotic, unscientific, debunked woo.

just a quick note
current (parallel or perpendicular) in space plasmas are induced by changes in the magnetic field (ampere's law)
currents have nothing to do with charge separation

And that’s it nothing to see here, move along. typical

Quote:

Abstract:
As the rate of energy release in a double layer with voltage ΔV is P ≈ IΔV, a double layer must be treated as a part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that X-ray and γ-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers (although annihilation is an alternative energy source). A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g., double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934).

Imagine How big are those currents when galactic size magnetic fields are involved.

Those incredibly weak galactic magnetic fields, that do what exactly?

Originally Posted by Sol88

But in this instance the magnetic field at a comet is induced and far as I can read the solar wind is being charge separated with all the ensuing complex plasma phenomena.

No magnetic field is "induced" at all!
Around the comet there is an induced magnetosphere like around Venus and Mars. Get your facts straight.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Just wait till you have to model in the charged dust component to get things real complex...for the maths.

whatever you say, solly

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Is there any reason why currents and quasi-neutrality cannot occur at the same time?

Originally Posted by Sol88

My understanding of currents in space plasmas take on a nested concentric cylinders of opposite charge separated by sheath walls?

Well, I guess your understanding is flawed to say the least.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Makes more sense than

Quote:

current (parallel or perpendicular) in space plasmas are induced by changes in the magnetic field (ampere's law) currents have nothing to do with charge separation

How much current flowing between Io and Jupiter, tusenfem? Jd116?

Well I guess you are going to explain why that makes more sense.

You can google how much current is flowing, which has nothing to do with charge separation and all about inductive currents (in a simplified way like Alfvén's unipolar inductor)

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Im sure Alfven would be interested in the data obtained from all the latest missions e.g. Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Pluto, Mercury, Ceres, various asretoids and comets.

In this case, comet 67P, its electrical environment is only JUST becoming clear! As said by a former student of Alfvens.

Oh brother, tell me something new that double layers cannot be modeled in MHD, why do you think I did not use MHD in my PhD thesis on double layers?

And circuit modeling is just the long-wavelength approximation of plasma physics.

Is there any point to this mindless quote mining?

There is no need for me to explain anything to you anymore. This has been discussed in this thread and the the electric sun and other electric woo threads. Not that you actually accept anything that people explain to you. And also, you don't even take a skeptical view to the fact that your electric buddies don't even dare to touch the incredible amount of plasma data that is available from all the cometary missions that have taken place in recent history.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Sol88: The ignorance that the size of a magnetic field sets the strength of currents

Originally Posted by Sol88

Imagine ...

12 December 2017 Sol88: The ignorance that the size of a magnetic field sets the strength of currents.
The weak galactic magnetic field would create weak currents in plasma They might be "big" in size but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

12 December 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies to derail from his comet delusions.

12 December 2017 Sol88: Stupid "quasi neutral" question to derail from his comet delusions.
Currents are a net flow of charge and thus are actually charged !

For others:
Quasi-neutrality is that above a Debye length, plasma acts as If it were neutral. An exception is if charge is separated to make double layers when the quasi-neutral scale is a few tens of Debye lengths (maybe less than 100 meters on a comet coma or tail?).

12 December 2017 Sol88: A lying "plasma physics " post.
We have never argued over plasma physics. He has regurgitated Thunderbolts cult stupidity and lies on plasma physics. We have listed plasma physics and debunked their lies, e.g. the stupid lie of ""electrical nature of well everything" when the electric and magnetic forces, the strong force, weak force and gravitation exist!

Sol88: Delusions about Hannes Alfvén to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88

And ...

12 December 2017 Sol88: Delusions about Hannes Alfvén to derail from his comet delusions.Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics includes Alfven stating the basic fact that MHD cannot treat double layers as we have pointed out several times. It is thus a delusion to expect DLs can be treated by MHD or cite this out yet again !

The idiocy of implying that Alfvén was so abysmally ignorant or deluded to support any of his many comet delusions. Hannes Alfvén was a competent scientist not a crazy crackpot. Hannes Alfvén would have been interested in the 22 years of astrophysics progress that has occurred since his death in 1995. He would have been disappointed in how much of it is against his opinion that double layers are widespread, especially the solar flares in his 1986 paper. Magnetic reconnection is the supported by evidence, mainstream mechanism for solar flares and other solar activity. That has been textbook physics for a couple of decades, e.g. Magnetic Reconnection, MHD Theory and Application by Priest and Forbes (2000).